US Navy Railgun - Destroys all it touches @ 5,640 mph

Overheal

www.gizmodo.com wrote:

US Navy has just completed a 10-megajoule test fire of their huge rail gun. For the first time ever, they fired a projectile with a velocity of 8,270 feet per second. That's an amazing 5,640 mph, and the gun is only firing at a third of its potential power.

The Navy is researching rail guns because they would weigh less than conventional ones, and since they rely on electromagnetics to fire rounds, you wouldn't need a big, dangerous pile of explosives stored in a magazine. All of that means a lighter ship, and a much more deadly ship: a combat-ready rail gun would be able to fire Mach 5 projectiles over 200 miles with pinpoint accuracy, hitting 5 meter targets.
Yesterday's test firing at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division used just some of the potential 32-megajoules the laboratory test gun is capable of, and that's only half the 64-megajoules the Navy is aiming at for the final weapon.

Effective rail guns will require a major breakthrough in capacitor technology between now and 2020, as well as a way to keep the barrels from being shredded by each high-velocity shot.

Mind you, the Navy isn't like pissing its pants for joy that it gets to play with a 32-megajoule rail gun. This is America, after all. What the Navy really wants is a 64-megajoule rail gun. But since that might take 13 years and would require, yep, 6 million amps per shot, the Navy's gonna have to quit bitching and enjoy the toys it has, at least for now.

So.... anyone else get the feeling the awl' ICBM is useless, and WWIII is potentially closer than we thought?

biko

Reality is just copying Quake

SimpleSam06

Overheal wrote: »

So.... anyone else get the feeling the awl' ICBM is useless, and WWIII is potentially closer than we thought?

No the ICBM serves a different purpose. Weapons like this have only a mid range value, cruise missiles go to 300 miles generally but are a lot easier to shoot down. Weighed against that the projectiles from the railguns can't be steered since no guidance system can survive the massive launch acceleration, so all you have to do is move in the minute or two it takes to reach you. Good for coastal bombardment however.

I see they haven't fixed the problem with it melting the launch rails though. Its all academic until then.

ScumLord

Overheal wrote: »

So.... anyone else get the feeling the awl' ICBM is useless, and WWIII is potentially closer than we thought?

Not really the Americans haven't got anybody to fight with.

Stercus Accidit

They claim they wont have to store dangerous gunpowder?

Well the energy has to come from somewhere, and most energy sources designed to emit alot of energy in a short space of time are volatile.

Chemicals are a relatively easy way to store this energy, gun powder or whatever the modern naval powder is.

An electronic railgun would surely need massive capacitors to store the energy just before firing, they are heavy, and a source of this energy, most likely an on board reactor, so only large nuclear powered vessels.

I call more bs waste of tax dollars, like the useless boeing laser plane, as effective as one sniper but costing millions.

BOO!

SimpleSam06

Motosam wrote: »

An electronic railgun would surely need massive capacitors to store the energy just before firing, they are heavy, and a source of this energy, most likely an on board reactor, so only large nuclear powered vessels.

Most of the US blue water fleet has been designed with extra capacity for weapons like this since the fifties. And just to put it in context, a jumbo jet produces enough energy to fire one of these every second, assuming it wasnt actually flying at the time. One other major advantage they offer is stunning penentrative power, they can slice through tens of meters of reinforced concrete with ease. A barrage of them on a hardened position with knock out just about anything. Think meteorite launchers and you have the right idea.

Stercus Accidit

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Most of the US blue water fleet has been designed with extra capacity for weapons like this since the fifties. And just to put it in context, a jumbo jet produces enough energy to fire one of these every second, assuming it wasnt actually flying at the time. One other major advantage they offer is stunning penentrative power, they can slice through tens of meters of reinforced concrete with ease. A barrage of them on a hardened position with knock out just about anything. Think meteorite launchers and you have the right idea.

Sounds like they still need to get the capacitors done first, but the advantage over their conventional weapons is usually not enough to validate these things, and they have wasted money in the past.

I will remain sceptical for now.

SimpleSam06

Motosam wrote: »

Sounds like they still need to get the capacitors done first, but the advantage over their conventional weapons is usually not enough to validate these things, and they have wasted money in the past.

I think the idea is to swap million dollar cruise missiles for metal lumps that cost a few hundred bucks a pop.

Stercus Accidit

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I think the idea is to swap million dollar cruise missiles for metal lumps that cost a few hundred bucks a pop.

Have they finished the aiming system yet though? That will be very expensive surely, and has the accuracy reported been confirmed at 200 miles as they claim it would be?

The idea of reducing costs that much sounds great, but getting to that stage may cost a great deal more than they anticipate.

Will satelites be used to aim at a target 200 miles away, that they cannot see surely with the curvature of the earth, so the aiming system will most likely be complicated and expensive.

I cant get into this now I'm at work, interesting concept though.

BlitzKrieg

my only curiosity is will this lead to a revival of Battleships?


I'm not pro big military expendature...but I have a big soft spot for big ww2 era battleships like the Bismarck and the Misouri and so on.

SimpleSam06

Motosam wrote: »

Have they finished the aiming system yet though? That will be very expensive surely, and has the accuracy reported been confirmed at 200 miles as they claim it would be?

I'm not sure tbh.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

my only curiosity is will this lead to a revival of Battleships?

The US navy has been evolving in a weird way since WW2, with different classes of ships merging into one another. Most non carrier ships now qualify as battleships in the traditional sense of the word, but future battles between large navies are unlikely to depend on the carriers, since by the end of WW2 the US was using formations that made it basically impossible for even a large well equipped airforce to get to the carriers.

Pit two carrier groups against one another and they cancel out, leaving it to the subs and surface fleet to do the damage. Since there probably won't be any major surface confrontations ever again, we'll probably never know.

Jumpy

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I think the idea is to swap million dollar cruise missiles for metal lumps that cost a few hundred bucks a pop.

Isnt that what they pay for spanners?

Dinter

Wow. That would come in handy should America ever need to crush or bully another regime.

With that sort of accuracy it should cut down on collateral damage in built up areas and increase the chances of the success of a decapitation strike.

SimpleSam06

Dinter wrote: »

With that sort of accuracy it should cut down on collateral damage in built up areas and increase the chances of the success of a decapitation strike.

Actually they release astonishing amounts of energy when they hit, much more than a cruise missile (some estimates put it around 15000lbs of TNT); the comparison to a meteorite was accurate. You don't want to be anywhere near when one of those babies touches down.

Reku

Am I the only one thinking:
Highly charged rails + sea water = rusted before the end of first tour of duty?
Even a single fleck of rust on that track risks upsetting the velocity of the slug by quite a bit.

Anyone interested in finding out more about Gauss rifles (rail and coil guns) probably the best site on it is http:www.powerlabs.org
The guy who owns that site is a genius and has built a few working gauss rifles, although on a much smaller scale than these cannons.

Ross_Mahon

biko wrote: »

Reality is just copying Quake

QUAD DAMAGE!

Reku

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Actually they release astonishing amounts of energy when they hit, much more than a cruise missile (some estimates put it around 15000lbs of TNT); the comparison to a meteorite was accurate. You don't want to be anywhere near when one of those babies touches down.

Yeah, to put it in perspective:
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity x velocity

so for everytime the velocity is doubled the approximate energy released on impact will be quadrupled.

The slug is travelling at about 2.5KM per SECOND

so 2500 x 2500 x 0.5 x Mass = Kinetic Energy

Even if the slug only has a 1 gramme mass that's still over 3 Megajoules on impact.

For further illustration I searched for the KE of the slugs from an A-10 tank killer's gun (so called for obvious reasons):

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/10/extrasuper_serious_geek_alert.html
KE = (.91kg / 2) x (1500 m/s x 1500 m/s) = 1,023,750 joules of smack down

or 1 Megajoule.
So with a measly 1 gramme slug this thing already packs the same punch as 3 rounds designed to destroy tanks!

BlitzKrieg

so for everytime the velocity is doubled the approximate energy released on impact will be quadrupled.

so...

QUAD DAMAGE!

dsmythy

ScumLord wrote: »

Not really the Americans haven't got anybody to fight with.

Oh they'll find someone to fight! If it's the last thing they do.

This thread might belong in the military forum.

SimpleSam06

Just an update on the need for capacitors to power the thing, a megajoule class railgun is powered by a compulsator, a type of modified alternator ( compensated for low inductance to provide enormous current pulses )...the rotor is spun up by a large engine, and the rotational energy in the rotor is turned into multiple high current pulses...in earlier test systems ( still megajoule class ), they can fire a burst of 10 shots on one spinup. These things can be scaled to fit in a modern tank, or up to naval gun size.

Wossack

2.5km / second

(sorry, I dont work in ft and inches )

is there not a huge amount of recoil? or do they counter that with relatively small slugs?

ScumLord

I wouldn't have thought there would be as much recoil. It's not an explosion like with ordinary bullets.

SimpleSam06

Wossack wrote: »

is there not a huge amount of recoil? or do they counter that with relatively small slugs?

Rail guns do not generate recoil in the same way that conventional guns do. Recoil in a railgun is perpendicular to the direction of the projectiles travel. It tends to force the rails apart which causes arcing, rail ablation and a drop in current. This is called Lorentz force. You can read more plus pretty pictures here.

Wossack

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Rail guns do not generate recoil in the same way that conventional guns do. Recoil in a railgun is perpendicular to the direction of the projectiles travel. It tends to force the rails apart which causes arcing, rail ablation and a drop in current. This is called Lorentz force. You can read more plus pretty pictures here.

ah thats interesting, thanks for the links

Maximilian

Apparently, the Chinese begin testing the BFG9000 next week.

BlitzKrieg

*bah* Iran are close to finishing the first working Redeemer prototype.

Stercus Accidit

From what I know rail guns do experience recoil, as the coil projects the slug forward with magnetic force, that same force pushes back on the coils, gun.

Battleships can handle this I assume.

Another thing I just thought of, this will have very limited use, as the energy is stored kinetically in the slug, and at high velocity, wont this result in massive overpenetration, ie, a target with a very nice little hole in it?

Sabots work on tanks due to the resistance of the armor and the confined nature of the tank internals, they are sh1te against small bunkers or any softer targets, they will either go right through or just dig into the ground, this is why heat rounds are still used.

Also, someone calculate if at 5000 km/second you will drop your projectile enough per km to follow the curve of the earth, as over 200 miles this is a factor, and the projectile may just fly off into the sky, again making it crap.

SimpleSam06

Motosam wrote: »

Another thing I just thought of, this will have very limited use, as the energy is stored kinetically in the slug, and at high velocity, wont this result in massive overpenetration, ie, a target with a very nice little hole in it?

No, when the slug hits it vapourises into high energy plasma, also sending lots of little bits of superheated metal shrieking around the place as an added bonus. In earlier tests they made neat little holes right through tanks; the military was looking at it as a way of disarming tanks by knocking out the engine block without harming the crew, but the cloud of vapourised metal inside the tank would have killed all the crew. I think someone verified this with sheep at one stage.

Motosam wrote: »

Also, someone calculate if at 5000 km/second you will drop your projectile enough per km to follow the curve of the earth, as over 200 miles this is a factor, and the projectile may just fly off into the sky, again making it crap.

Well its not 5000 km/sec, its mach 8, which is nowhere near escape or even orbital velocity.

Manic Moran

It is proposed that the CG(X) class cruisers be nuclear powered, to ensure adequate provision for the large power generation required for such things. In fairness, given the rising costs of fuel oil, it may well be an economically wiser move as well.

NTM

Manic Moran

No, when the slug hits it vapourises into high energy plasma, also sending lots of little bits of superheated metal shrieking around the place as an added bonus. In earlier tests they made neat little holes right through tanks; the military was looking at it as a way of disarming tanks by knocking out the engine block without harming the crew, but the cloud of vapourised metal inside the tank would have killed all the crew. I think someone verified this with sheep at one stage

Depends to a large extent on the level of overpenetration. Tanks do not use kinetic energy rounds against APCs for this reason. One ends up with a small hole on one side of the APC, a small hole in whoever happens to be in the path of the round, and a small hole on the far side of the APC, with little enough spalling brought in by the penetration that there's an excellent chance of no significant damage ocurring. You end up looking at the overall ratio of warhead diameter, armour thickness, and internal volume of the target.

NTM

SimpleSam06

Manic Moran wrote: »

You end up looking at the overall ratio of warhead diameter, armour thickness, and internal volume of the target.

Well yes, fire it at a sheet of paper and you get a (smoking) hole in a sheet of paper. The SR-71 blackbird had a top speed of mach 3.5 because the heat was causing the titanium shielding on the craft to come unstuck - one of these projectiles is halfway to plasma by the time it exits the railgun. For the kind of targets it would be used against (big enough to stop it), you are looking at a detonation. Its not an anti aircraft weapon, although a smaller version might be.

Stercus Accidit

Come on lads, this is afterhours for fecks sake.

Boo-urns, rail gun ftl +1

Yore Ma Rail Gun!

I think afterall, the article did admit several obstacles to this, and admited while this may be the weapon of the future, it isnt the replacement for all conventional weapons for now.

I do appreciate though this could see use in the future, but there will always be a place for flying boom booms.

AlmightyCushion

Man, that is fúcking cool. I know what I'm putting on my christmas list. Are there any videos of this thing in action?

kowloon

I can see that baldy eejit from future weapons doing a segment on it now :rolleyes:

I swear if you could harness the power of that gob$hites false enthusiasm you wouldn't need a railgun.

Overheal

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Man, that is fúcking cool. I know what I'm putting on my christmas list. Are there any videos of this thing in action?

Yep Here. You can clearly see the conversion into plasma, brought on by the insane amount of friction the round contends with when flying through air. Mmm.... Space war....

http://gizmodo.com/351467/navy-rail-gun-test-destroys-everything-it-touches-at-5640-mph

Sams onto a point though - next step: plasma cannons. Well... working Railguns.... but Plasma Cannons!

If not nuclear weaponry, this does mean nobody is ever going to want to fly anywhere near US airspace... you wont even know what hit you.

Naos

Well that seems interesting...

Now onto the real reason I have posted.

Am I the only one who hears "QUAD DAMAGE" in the quake face every time I read "Quad Damage"? Just happened twice there.

Ahh memories *wipes solitary tear from eye*

Manic Moran

kowloon wrote: »

I can see that baldy eejit from future weapons doing a segment on it now :rolleyes:

I swear if you could harness the power of that gob$hites false enthusiasm you wouldn't need a railgun.

Who, Baldy the WonderSEAL?

Did you know he was a Navy SEAL?*

NTM

*Anyone who has watched the show knows what I'm on about.

Canis Lupus

According to the reg tho is that the guns come apart after 4 rounds atm nevermind finding a powersource to fire them.

Still, very neat thing.

Red Hand

Isn't there research on something for firing stuff into space using a rail? Maybe for future stations on the moon or Mar where the atmosphere would be thinner or non existent and gravity weaker?

SimpleSam06

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Isn't there research on something for firing stuff into space using a rail? Maybe for future stations on the moon or Mar where the atmosphere would be thinner or non existent and gravity weaker?

Heh, thats one of the reasons I have a great interest in this technology. The main barrier stopping us from getting into space at the moment is the cost (€6000 to €30000 per kilo); there are infinite resources up there but the cost of getting up there in the first place makes it worthless. For example, just to give you an idea, quoted from wikipedia:

In 2004, the world production of iron ore exceeded 1,000 million metric tons. In comparison, a comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km could contain more than 2,000 million metric tons of iron-nickel ore, or two to three times the annual production for 2004. The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of iron-nickel, which could supply the 2004 world production requirement for several million years. A small portion of the extracted material would also contain precious metals, although these would likely be more difficult to extract.

And there are millions of those rocks just floating there. Added to which we have the biggest power source ever to fuel orbital industries, the sun, for free.

While you couldn't have a cannon to blast things into space (the massive acceleration wipes out even solid state electronics and dumb satellites, and would turn humans into a fine pink mist), the area being focused on at the moment in certain quarters is the construction of large towers, up to 11km high, containing maglev rails to accelerate a single stage to orbit vessel at around seven gs. Think pylons rather than solid structures. This is a feat well within the technical abilities of any spacefaring power right now.

While not providing enough of a boost to push ships even into high orbit, you can get to low earth orbit using this method, leaving plenty of room to spare for cargo, effectively reducing the cost to move things up there by orders of magnitude. Once there its much easier to get higher up using materials you move up there from your tower.

S.I.R

after reading that im still not scared.... theres 86 million irish passports in the world with 6 million in our country and since an ak-47 costs 17 african dollars.... im actually getting ready for WWIII

Manic Moran

Sounds like a sort of mag-lev space elevator. I always wondered how they planned on getting all that tonnage of cable into orbit, and it seems much less dangerous should the cable snap. (Witness Blue Mars)

NTM

SimpleSam06

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sounds like a sort of mag-lev space elevator. I always wondered how they planned on getting all that tonnage of cable into orbit, and it seems much less dangerous should the cable snap. (Witness Blue Mars)

The space elevator is a worthwhile idea, but for now thats all it is. Materials science is nowhere near being able to produce a cable of that tensile strength, and might never be for all we know. The tower launch, on the other hand, could be done today, with what we have already. All it would need is the financial backing and the political will.